Not all conservation is appropriate

fosters.com

Writer

Posted Feb. 21, 2013 at 3:15 AM

Posted Feb. 21, 2013 at 3:15 AM

Milton selectmen and that town’s conservation commissioners met this week to explore why, for six years, no revenues coming from land being taken out of current use, were allocated to a conservation fund, as previously decreed by voters. No definitive answer was immediately forthcoming, but it was agreed (as determined by auditors) that the sum of $124,619 had gone into the general fund, when its correct destination was a fund dedicated to the purpose of conservation.

It was also stated by the commissioners that since things first went awry in 2005, they had been trying to get answers without success, which is something perhaps, that selectmen have to work out with the town treasurer, or whoever is responsible for transferring revenues to the correct destination, as approved by the residents of the town.

We applaud Selectmen Bob Bridges and Tom Gray for making the motion to immediately transfer $24,619 to the conservation fund, as this, along with money already there, will help pay the costs associated with an easement in the works in the Hare/Governors roads area.

Commissioner Cynthia Wyatt noted that this acreage on the ridge, when under easement, will thwart the construction of eight to 10 homes, and thus save taxpayers money in the long run, as families typically cost, with services such as schools, police and fire, 130 percent of the revenues they give back in property taxes. She also mentioned that even land developed for commercial and industrial use, while expanding the tax base, also had the disadvantage of attracting people to work there.

We advise her to shy away from that angle, which first was spouted by an Extension crowd out of UNH, as reason to oppose all development — an elitist rationale that we have firmly opposed on this opinion page in the past.

People in Milton, and everywhere else have the right to live, to expect that affordable homes in attractive locations will be on the market for their kids when they grow up, and to hope that jobs will be available, ideally without a commute of more than a few miles. As it is, the latest figures show that 89.5 percent of Milton’s work force of 2,527 has to drive an average of 31 minutes, out of town or out of state, to their place of work. That takes, by our rough estimate, well over one million gallons of gas a year ... something that environmentalists would do well to take into account.

Mike McDonnell of Milton Three Ponds Protective Association made a sound case for conservation, in the instances where water quality impairment would likely result from development, Wyatt also noted, from the Rochester Times table of Jan. 31, the astonishing expansion in impervious surfaces (through which rain cannot filter) — in Milton and elsewhere. In the 20 years from 1990 to 2010, Milton’s impervious surfaces grew from 597 acres to 1,308 acres (up 219 percent), while population in the same time period, grew from 3,691 to 4,598 (up 124 percent.) Unfortunately, this is typical for the region as a whole.

Another Milton commissioner, Steve Panish, talked of the town becoming a “mini-Wolfeboro” with restaurants capitalizing on the lake views, and trails through the forests and hills being developed and integrated, to attract outdoor enthusiasts. If this ever comes to fruition in the next 20 years, which we cannot quite envision, let’s hope that the parking lots to accommodate these welcome diners, hikers and snowmobilers are constructed of pervious materials.

Meantime, we would remind the most avid of environmentalists that all conservation is not appropriate — a point helpfully made on Monday evening by Commissioner Emery Booska. People have got to live, shop, work and recreate, and that all takes up land. Finding the balance, and the “special places” to save is the key.